tom wrote:
re: the comments - they are part of each review game so they can be viewed by clicking on the games. Without the context of the game I don't think they have as much value.

Well, that's not at all the point.

Example: Clue was approved before it was ready. 11's has copped to having approved it just for having given in to temptation. Pass/Fail is too easy and there's essentially zero accountability. This may seem like a minor (or no) problem at the moment but, I know I always say this, as the site expands, the user base grows, the review board will also grow and the number of boards submitted will increase. Best to be prepared for this before it happens.

I'm obviously not saying there should be comments on the order of a recap of the test game (eg. "seems balanced I guess, I won because I'm awesome and destroyed Yertle's territories as usual"), which are better off in the game comments. I'm advocating for a REVIEW. At the very least, comments/feedback/justification on the board or on the vote you're casting for pass or fail. I think everyone who plays in the official review game should have to type something in, even if it's only "the graphics aren't ready, gave feedback to author" or "seems like a direct copy of a WF board, borders are all there" or whatever. And those comments should be available on the Board Review > Live Boards tab.

But I understand that you don't agree, Tom, and that's fine. I just didn't want to let the discussion end with "well there's no point, there's already places to type in the game."

Everything that you argued should take place outside the game, should take place in the game. if you're reviewing a game and "the graphics aren't ready", tell the board designer in the game. We can all go back and look at these comments at any time.

Okay, as disagree as you disagree with me, I at least as much disagree with your disagreement.

Yipee! Productive dialogue!

I agree with you that there should be some responsibility for promoting a board to go live, but I do not think it is necessary for us to explain ourselves. In example, clue, which you claim is not ready, was a direct wf copy, which you boast as a reasoning for promoting a board to live. In that case clue would have been approved and you'd still be in this same boat.

There could be a field which the reviewer has to fill in when promoting the board to Live status... but what exactly would that achieve? Presumably the reviewer is just going to write something along the lines of 'Plays great' and click on Pass?

Really I think the only way to go in terms of tightening up the process is going to be having to have >1 reviewer vote on each board. Fail still means fail but maybe 2 Passes are needed?

You know what, Jigen, I give up. I typed out a couple versions of a reply, but your response is so stupid that I couldn't do it without being more of an asshole than is probably appropriate. So let's just say you win this conversation and leave it at that.

I'll rewind to "I understand you don't agree, Tom, I see your point of view, and I think I've made my opinion fairly clear." It's far from the end of the world either way.

Anyway back to the original topic... I've updated the code so Standard members can now still update their existing board designs - this is limited to creating new versions of existing boards, completely new boards are not allowe.

Also boards which have gone to Live and are subsequently updated now retain the original reviewers name.

Plus there is now a notification sent to all reviewers when a board is Passed or Failed.

tom wrote: There could be a field which the reviewer has to fill in when promoting the board to Live status... but what exactly would that achieve? Presumably the reviewer is just going to write something along the lines of 'Plays great' and click on Pass?

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I agree that the only fix is multiple "Passes" required to actually pass the board.

tom wrote:
Plus there is now a notification sent to all reviewers when a board is Passed or Failed.

Is this an e-mail or a pm. and if its an email, is there any way I can change mine to a pm. Just my personal Preference.

I'll set that up... it's an email atm.

thank you.

If there is going to be multiple votes to pass a board then a email/PM should go to all players in the review game that the game has ended and it is time to vote.

And still account for 1vs1 games.

oh yes. 1v1 games are tricky because the board designer cannot vote, can they?

Yet one more reason for why I feel designers should not be a part of the review process.

on 1 v 1 games the designer could be a viewer. It's in their list but they're not on the board anywhere. I would also prefer not to play as a designer. It's unscientific. I want to see if everyone goes for the same territories and if i'm sitting on it, I foul up the dynamic.

asm wrote:

1. Would like to see a link from players' profiles to boards they've created

Just noticed this was present on Player Profiles now!

blackJack wrote: on 1 v 1 games the designer could be a viewer. It's in their list but they're not on the board anywhere. I would also prefer not to play as a designer. It's unscientific. I want to see if everyone goes for the same territories and if i'm sitting on it, I foul up the dynamic.

I agree it's not that scientific in terms of the gameplay itself, however I do think it's valuable in terms of providing direct feedback to the designer so the board can be updated on the fly.

The designer can be an observer but I'd be concerned about ensuring that they read and acted upon the reviewers comments, potentially the review would have to be something more formal in that case.

tom wrote:

blackJack wrote: on 1 v 1 games the designer could be a viewer. It's in their list but they're not on the board anywhere. I would also prefer not to play as a designer. It's unscientific. I want to see if everyone goes for the same territories and if i'm sitting on it, I foul up the dynamic.

I agree it's not that scientific in terms of the gameplay itself, however I do think it's valuable in terms of providing direct feedback to the designer so the board can be updated on the fly.

The designer can be an observer but I'd be concerned about ensuring that they read and acted upon the reviewers comments, potentially the review would have to be something more formal in that case.

I see what you mean. I would be too interested to resist watching. I don't know about other designers.  Maybe if the designer still had some sort of turn so the game would wait for him to chime in before continuing.